DOCSLIB.ORG

Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation…

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation… Diametros (2021) doi: 10.33392/diam.1592 D IMENSIONS OF THE THREAT TO THE SELF POSED BY DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION: PERSONAL IDENTITY, AUTHENTICITY, AND AUTONOMY – Przemysław Zawadzki – Abstract: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an invasive therapeutic method involving the implantation of electrodes and the electrical stimulation of specifi c areas of the brain to modulate their activity. DBS brings therapeutic benefi ts, but can also have adverse side effects. Recently, neuroethicists have recognized that DBS poses a threat to the very fabric of human existence, namely, to the selves of pa- tients. This article provides a review of the neuroethical literature examining this issue, and identifi es the crucial dimensions related to the self which DBS may endanger—personal identity, authenticity, and autonomy. The most infl uential theories accounting for these dimensions are analyzed herein, and it is argued that most of these theories require further refi nement. This paper also demonstrates the interrelation between personal identity, authenticity, and autonomy, and concludes that one can only fully understand the impact of DBS on the self when all of these factors are taken into account. Keywords: self, personal identity, authenticity, autonomy, deep brain stimulation (DBS), neuroethics. Published online: 4 June 2021 Therapeutic potential Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an invasive therapeutic method involving the im- plantation of electrodes and the electrical stimulation of specifi c regions of the brain.1 Depending on the disease and treatment strategy, different structures are targeted, for example, the subthalamic nucleus (STN), the globus pallidus internus (GPi), or the nucleus accumbens (NAc). The exact action mechanism of DBS has not yet been con- fi rmed. The proposed models, however, can be divided into four categories.2 Models of the fi rst category reduce the effect of DBS to the inhibition of the neuronal activity of the targeted areas for stimulation; the second to the excitation of these areas; models of the third category postulate that its action is due to a combination of these mechanisms;3 Przemysław Zawadzki Institute of Philosophy Jagiellonian University Grodzka 52 31-044 Krakow e-mail: [email protected] 1 Hemm, Wårdell (2010); Herrington, Cheng, Eskandar (2016). 2 Karas, Mikell, Christian et al. (2013); Montgomery, Gale (2008). 3 Vitek (2008). 1/281 Przemysław Zawadzki ◦ Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation… and the fourth considers DBS to be interrupting pathological oscillations to regain the synchronized, rhythmic activity of the brain waves.4 The lack of consensus among researchers about these mechanisms has not pre- vented the systematic use of this technology for medical purposes.5 After the introduc- tion of the fi rst commercial system for clinical use in 1997,6 DBS proved its therapeutic potential in a number of intractable neurological and psychiatric disorders for which previous treatments (e.g. pharmacotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy) had not pro- vided satisfactory results, such as Parkinson’s disease (PD),7 dystonia,8 essential tremor,9 and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD).10 This prompted the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve DBS as a treatment for these ailments. Thus, DBS should be considered a treatment of last resort for patients with no other viable treatment options.11 The therapeutic range of DBS is constantly expanding, with experimental stud- ies conducted in the treatment of epilepsy,12 Tourette’s syndrome,13 treatment–resistant depression,14 Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia,15 anorexia,16 obesity,17 disorders of consciousness,18 chronic pain,19 Huntington’s disease,20 addictions,21 aggres- sion,22 and schizophrenia.23 In Poland, DBS is mainly used as a treatment for PD, as well as for dystonia and essential tremor.24 Some centers in Poland are also working on the use of DBS for psychiatric disorders: the 10th Military Research Hospital and Polyclinic IPHC in Bydgoszcz, the University Hospital in Wroclaw, and the Wroclaw Medical University have experience in this fi eld. Currently, a multicenter study is planned on the use of DBS in patients with treatment–resistant depression.25 Several companies that produce DBS equipment are operating in the market. In 2017, the leading manufacturer, Medtronic Activia, announced that 150,000 patients had already used their systems for DBS therapies, and this number increases annually by 4 Chiken, Nambu (2015). 5 Fitzgerald, Segrave (2015). 6 Gardner (2013). 7 Hickey, Stacy (2016). 8 Vidailhet, Jutras, Grabli et al. (2013). 9 Ostrem, Racine, Glass et al. (2011). 10 Hamani, Pilitsis, Rughani et al. (2014). 11 Many thanks to the anonymous reviewer for pushing me to suffi ciently emphasize this crucial fea- ture of DBS therapy as it has important consequences for the neuroethical considerations in this paper. 12 Fisher, Salanova, Witt et al. (2010). 13 Schrock, Mink, Woods et al. (2015). 14 Bewernick, Kayser, Sturm et al. (2012). 15 Laxton, Lozano (2013). 16 Lipsman, Woodside, Lozano (2013). 17 Whiting, Tomycz, Bailes et al. (2013). 18 Schiff, Giacino, Kalmar et al. (2007). 19 Falowski (2015). 20 Starr (2013). 21 Kuhn, Bührle, Lenartz et al. (2013). 22 Franzini, Broggi, Cordella et al. (2013). 23 Corripio, Roldán, Sarró et al. (2020). 24 Beszłej, Siwicki, Fila-Witecka et al. (2019). 25 Beszłej, Wieczorek, Kobyłko et al. (2019). 2/282 Przemysław Zawadzki ◦ Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation… approximately 10,000. Currently, the number of patients considerably exceeds 160,00026 and is estimated at 175,000.27 These numbers show that DBS plays an important role in the lives of many people, and as research progresses on the disorders that are currently under study, this impact will include further groups of patients.28 DBS technologies DBS systems consist of one or more electrodes inserted into the nervous tissue of the deep brain, connected via a subcutaneous extension wire to a stimulator (“pacemaker”) implanted in the left subclavian area. In order to stimulate the electrodes, the pacemaker generates rectangular electrical pulses. Typical DBS parameter settings for movement disorders range from 2 to 4 V amplitude, with a 60–450 μs pulse width at a frequency of 130–185 Hz.29 The implantation procedure marks the fi rst stage of the therapy; followed by the device programming process. Until recently, this was performed by painstakingly ad- justing the parameters of the stimulation by trial and error. Newer techniques facilitate the programming process30 by enabling the more optimal adjustment of parameters based on: (1) determining the precise location of the electrodes by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or pre–operative MRI in combination with post–operative tomography imaging; (2) determining the desired target of stimulation with the help of previous clinical experience and estimation of current spread within the brain tissue. This approach is referred to as “open loop” DBS (OL–DBS), and although it is currently the most common technique, it has been recognized as problematic for various reasons. First, it results in a mismatch between the time course of the disease and the timing of adjustments, since clinicians can only adjust the stimulation parameters during medical appointments with patients. Second, it is based on a subjective assessment of the parameters that are benefi cial in each treatment. Third, it applies a stimulus pattern established during the programming process throughout the entire lifetime of the device. This operating mode typically results in the battery discharging within 2–5 years;31 it must then be surgically replaced, which has additional costs, stress, and risks associated with the procedure.32 Finally, the constant activity of OL–DBS can lead to undesirable permanent changes in neurotransmission in the long run,33 as well as non–stimulation– dependent neural reorganization.34 To resolve these problems, researchers have investigated and developed a new generation of DBS systems, commonly referred to as “closed loop” DBS (CL–DBS). The CL–DBS paradigm is defi ned by the dynamic adjustment of parameters based on 26 Lozano, Lipsman, Bergman et al. (2019). 27 Medtronic (2021). 28 Chhatbar, Saha (2015). 29 Kuncel, Grill (2004). 30 Frankemolle, Wu, Noecker et al. (2010). 31 Ondo, Meilak, Vuong (2007). 32 Deuschl, Herzog, Kleiner-Fisman et al. (2006). 33 Glannon (2016). 34 Ruge, Cif, Limousin et al. (2011). 3/283 Przemysław Zawadzki ◦ Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation… the patient’s current clinical condition assessed by measuring brain activity.35 CL–DBS developed from the fi eld of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs)—algorithms intended to identify the intentions of a person from brain activity to provide control over prosthetic/ assistive devices.36 Implementing BCIs in CL–DBS systems allows classifi cation of brain activity as “healthy” or “adverse.”37 Thanks to this procedure, CL–DBS can deliver and adjust stimulation in real time according to the particular needs of the patient. For exam- ple, when employed in the treatment of epilepsy, it detects early indicators of seizures and applies current to prevent the impending attacks.38 Compared to OL–DBS, CL–DBS systems result in better adaptation to specifi c disease dynamics, less invasiveness in neurotransmission, and reduced battery consumption.39 The CL–DBS paradigm has shown promising results for both neurological diseases like epilepsy40 or PD,41 as well as psychiatric disorders such as OCD and major depression.42 The emerging trend in DBS–based treatments is not only meant to facilitate the automatic adjustment of the stimulation in response to the abnormal neuronal activation associated with a given disease, but also to provide patients with the kind of active con- trol which allows them to respond to the symptoms and autonomously address thera- peutic goals. Systems that aim to facilitate this differ operationally from CL–DBS systems, as they are closed–loop advisory brain devices43 or volitional CL–DBS (VCL–DBS).44 In short, when the device detects unwanted neuronal activation, it gives a patient a visual or auditory signal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CYBORG MIND What Brain–Computer And
    CYBORG MIND What Brain‒Computer and Mind‒Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics CYBORG MIND Edited by Calum MacKellar Offers a valuable contribution to a conversation that promises to only grow in relevance and importance in the years ahead. Matthew James, St Mary’s University, London ith the development of new direct interfaces between the human brain and comput- Wer systems, the time has come for an in-depth ethical examination of the way these neuronal interfaces may support an interaction between the mind and cyberspace. In so doing, this book does not hesitate to blend disciplines including neurobiology, philosophy, anthropology and politics. It also invites society, as a whole, to seek a path in the use of these interfaces enabling humanity to prosper while avoiding the relevant risks. As such, the volume is the fi rst extensive study in cyberneuroethics, a subject matter which is certain to have a signifi cant impact in the twenty-fi rst century and beyond. Calum MacKellar is Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Ed- MACKELLAR inburgh, and Visiting Lecturer of Bioethics at St. Mary’s University, London. His past books EDITED BY What include (as co-editor) The Ethics of the New Eugenics (Berghahn Books, 2014). Brain‒Computer and Mind‒Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY EDITED BY CALUM MACKELLAR berghahn N E W Y O R K • O X F O R D Cover image by www.berghahnbooks.com Alexey Kuzin © 123RF.COM Cyborg Mind This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched.
    [Show full text]
  • The Handbook of Information Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics, ISBN 978-0-692-50161-0, Indianapolis: Synthypnion Academic, 2015, Pp
    Chapter 5, "A Two-dimensional Framework of Cognitional Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics," an excerpt from Gladden, Matthew E., The Handbook of Information Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics, ISBN 978-0-692-50161-0, Indianapolis: Synthypnion Academic, 2015, pp. 129-168. Developing a two-dimensional cognitional security framework In this chapter we develop a two-dimensional conceptual framework for cognitional security. The first dimension includes nine essential information security attributes or goals for neuroprosthetic devices and device-host sys- tems, namely confidentiality, integrity, availability, possession, authenticity, utility, distinguishability, rejectability, and autonomy. Each of these attributes relates to the device-host system as understood at three different levels, which comprise the second dimension of the framework; the levels are those of the device’s host understood as sapient metavolitional agent, embodied em- bedded organism, and social and economic actor. Below we present this framework in detail and consider its implications for information security for advanced neuroprosthetic devices. Defining security goals for the entire device-host system: nine essential attributes One of the most fundamental ways of understanding information security is through a framework of essential characteristics that a system must possess in order to be secure. One can understand these characteristics as the security “attributes” that an ideal system would possess. However, in practice such characteristics can never be perfectly
    [Show full text]
  • Emergent Neurotechnologies and Challenges to Responsibility Frameworks
    Akron Law Review Volume 54 Issue 1 Article 1 Emergent Neurotechnologies and Challenges to Responsibility Frameworks Laura Cabrera Jennifer Carter-Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Cabrera, Laura and Carter-Johnson, Jennifer () "Emergent Neurotechnologies and Challenges to Responsibility Frameworks," Akron Law Review: Vol. 54 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol54/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Cabrera and Carter-Johnson: Emergent Neurotechnologies EMERGENT NEUROTECHNOLOGIES AND CHALLENGES TO RESPONSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS Laura Cabrera* and Jennifer Carter-Johnson**1 I. Introduction ................................................................... 2 II. DBS challenges responsibility frameworks ................... 4 A. DBS Changes .......................................................... 4 B. DBS Situational Possibilities .................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Handbook of Information Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics, ISBN 978-0-692-50161-0, Indianapolis: Synthypnion Academic, 2015, Pp
    Chapter 3, "Critical Challenges in Information Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics," an excerpt from Gladden, Matthew E., The Handbook of Information Security for Advanced Neuroprosthetics, ISBN 978-0-692-50161-0, Indianapolis: Synthypnion Academic, 2015, pp. 59-103. Information security considerations unique to advanced neuroprosthetics Information security is a large and complex field. While there are funda- mental information security principles whose relevance is universal, the ways in which these principles are applied and elaborated in particular circum- stances is subject to specialized practices and bodies of knowledge. The tech- niques used to secure a large organization’s archive of decades of printed per- sonnel files are different than those used to secure a factory’s robotic manu- facturing systems or an individual consumer’s smartphone. As with all kinds of information systems that have been developed by hu- mankind, advanced neuroprosthetic devices present a unique array of infor- mation security problems and possibilities that exist within a particular set of technological, legal, political, ethical, social, and cultural contexts.1 In this chapter we highlight a number of issues that may not be relevant for many other kinds of information systems but which give rise to considerations that are critical for the information security of advanced neuroprosthetic devices. Many of the issues discussed below constitute recurring themes that will be revisited in different contexts throughout the rest of this book. Device user vs. device host In the case of a smartphone, the person who possesses the device and car- ries it with himself or herself on a daily basis is typically also the primary user and operator of the device: the smartphone’s possessor powers it on and off, 1 For an overview of ethical issues with ICT implants – many of which are relevant for advanced neuroprosthetics – see Hildebrandt & Anrig, “Ethical Implications of ICT Implants” (2012).
    [Show full text]